Collaboration and Collective Inquiry Goals in an Elementary School Professional Learning Community

ScholarWorks

ScholarWorks

2019

Collaboration and Collective Inquiry Goals in an Elementary

Collaboration and Collective Inquiry Goals in an Elementary

School Professional Learning Community

School Professional Learning Community

Walden University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Education Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu.edu.

Walden University

College of Education

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Susan Lazor

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by

the review committee have been made.

Review Committee

Dr. Mary Howe, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty Dr. Deborah Focarile, Committee Member, Education Faculty

Dr. Karen Hunt, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer and Provost Sue Subocz, Ph.D.

Walden University 2019

Abstract

Collaboration and Collective Inquiry Goals in an Elementary School Professional Learning Community

by Susan Lazor

EDS, Walden University, 2013 MA, Walden University, 2004

BAS, Regis University, 1997

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University November 2019

Abstract

K-12 schools in the United States face challenges to close the achievement gap, improve student learning and teacher instruction, and increase students’ and educators’

accountability. A professional learning community (PLC) was implemented to improve instruction and student learning at a K-5 elementary school located in the Western region of the United States. A bounded qualitative case study was used to conduct a modified formative objectives-oriented program evaluation to determine whether the collaboration and collective inquiry goals were met. This study was guided by DuFour’s PLC

framework. Research questions focused on how PLC team members developed and maintained the PLC goals to improve student achievement. Data were collected using document review and semistructured interviews from 10 teachers, 1 learning coach, and 2 administrators who participated in the PLC implementation for the 2015/16 school year. Thematic analysis using a priori, open, and axial codes were used to analyze the data and were related to the conceptual framework. Findings indicated that PLC teams used collaborative conversations/reflective dialogue to research and share strategies and used data-driven decisions to improve instruction and improve student achievement. PLC teams need to establish and monitor team goals and use vertical and horizontal planning. The project deliverable was a program evaluation report that provided recommendations to improve the PLC goals. Positive social change could occur if PLC teams partner with all teams, reflect on teaching practices, and use student data to improve teacher and student learning to close the achievement gap among students.

Collaboration and Collective Inquiry Goals in an Elementary School Professional Learning Community

by Susan Lazor

EDS, Walden University, 2013 MA, Walden University, 2004

BAS, Regis University, 1997

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University November 2019

Dedication

I dedicate this work to my parents, children, grandchildren, and friends who have offered their unconditioal love and support throughtout this journey. I also dedicate this to my friend Jeff who encouraged me to reach for the stars and chase my dreams. I will always be forever grateful to each and everyone of you. This could not have been possible without your support.

Acknowledgments

Throughout the years on this amazing, incredibly hard and challenging adventure, I could have never done this without all of your support and love. My father, Ray, has always inspired me to be the best that I can be, never give up, and has inspired me through his motivation, determination, and love of life. Thank you for being there for me, through this journey and all of the obstacles life has presented. My mother, Karon who is an amazing mother. Thank you for always understanding the words, “ I have to work on my paper.”

I am so thankful for the support from my children and grandchilden. Thank you for keeping me motivated and understanding the work that was required to complete this degree. I am grateful and blessed to have such an amazing family.

I want to thank a special person in my life, Jeff, who has supported and

encouraged me unconditionally throughout this journey. Thank you for understanding and supporting me. You are my inspiration.

I want to thank all of my professors and dissertation committee members at Walden University. Dr. Howe has been an incredible support to me throughout this journey. I could have never gotten this far without her support. Thank you for teaching me to pay attention to details, and supporting me through all of my revisions.

i

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...v

Section 1: The Problem ...1

Introduction ...1

Background of Problem ...3

Definition of the Problem ...7

Rationale ...8

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level ... 9

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature ... 11

Definitions...14

Significance...15

Guiding Questions ...16

Review of the Literature ...16

Conceptual Framework ...17

DuFour and Eaker Professional Learning Community Model. ... 18

Formative Objectives-Oriented Program Evaluation Model ... 24

Critical Review of the Literature ...26

Academic Achievement ... 26

Effect on Student Learning ...27

Federal Policies ...29

ii

Professional Development Types ... 39

Use of PLCs for Professional Development ... 42

Ensuring that Students Learn ... 44

Collaboration... 48

PLC Implementation Outcomes ... 54

Section 2: The Methodology ...57

Introduction ... 57

Research Questions ... 58

Rationale for Research Design... 58

Program Evaluation Model ... 59

Methods of Establishing a Researcher-Participant Relationship ... 62

Protection of Human Subjects ... 63

Interview Procedures ... 66

Document Analysis ... 70

Interview Data Analysis ... 73

Discrepant or Nonconforming Cases ... 75

Documents ... 78

Interviews ... 81

Identifying Gaps in Student Learning and Achievement ... 96

Adjust Instructional Practices ... 99

iii

Section 3: The Project ...115

Introduction ...115

Description and Goals ... 115

Rationale ...116

Review of the Literature ...117

Project Description...122

Implications Including Social Change ...123

Local Community ... 123

Far-Reaching ... 124

Conclusion ...125

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions ...126

Introduction ...126

Project Strengths ...126

Scholarship ... 129

Leadership and Change ...130

Analysis of Self as Scholar ...131

Analysis of Self as Practitioner ...132

Analysis of Self as Project Developer ...132

The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change...133

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research ...134

iv

References ...136

Appendix A: Executive Summary ...153

A Program Evaluation...153

Appendix B: Interview Protocol Teachers ...175

Appendix C: Interview Protocol Learning Coach ...180

Appendix D: Interview Protocol Administration ...184

Appendix E: Document Review ...188

Appendix F: Collaboration Axial Codes...195

Appendix G: Collective Inquiry Codes...196

v

List of Tables

Table 1. State Assessment Growth Results Based on PARCC Scores ...5

Table 2. State Assessment Results ...11

Table 3. A Priori Coding Example for collaboration and Collective Inquiry ...79

Table 4. Open Coding Example for Collaboration and Collective Inquiry ...80

Table 5. Axial Coding Example for Collaboration and Collective Inquiry ...81

Table 6. A Priori Coding Example for Collaboration and Collective Inquiry ...83

Table 7. Open Coding Example for Collective Inquiry and Collaboration ...84

Table 8. Axial Coding Example for Collective Inquiry and Collaboration ...86

Table 9. Themes ...88

Section 1: The Problem

Introduction

K-12 educators in the United States face many challenges to close the student achievement gap, increase student achievement, and improve teacher and school

accountability. Stakeholders, including government officials, administrators, and school board members, expect educators to develop more effective pedagogical strategies and focus on student learning to reach these goals. To add to these challenges, educators are charged with helping all students close the achievement gap regardless of their students’ socioeconomic status, diversity, or demographics. These challenges can become

complicated if teachers experience problems analyzing the curriculum and student data to identify gaps in student learning (Stewart, 2014). Consequently, teachers may struggle with identifying acceleration and remediation strategies to help students increase academic achievement. Another issue that teachers face is the opportunity to engage in effective collaboration among educators needed for reflective dialogues based on trust (Ho, Lee, & Teng, 2016). These collaborative, reflective dialogues are focused on educators’ instruction and assessment of student knowledge and student learning. Teachers rarely engage in meaningful or learning conversations (reflective dialogues) necessary to improve academic instruction and increase achievement (Makopoulou & Armour, 2014). The researchers found that critical conversations were uncommon, and teachers need additional training to challenge teachers to engage and learn from reflective dialogue.

A focus on school and teacher accountability represents yet another dimension of challenges teachers face and the changes now occurring in many schools across the United States. The state standardized tests administered in the spring of every school year measure school and teacher accountability at the research site. Intensified teacher accountability has resulted in improved educator evaluation procedures that ensure that teachers who remain in the classroom provide evidence of their continued effectiveness (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). If students perform well on these measurements, teachers are considered effective in the classroom. In contrast, if students perform poorly,

teachers’ performance is brought into question. If student achievement does not improve based on test scores, then schools are at risk of being put on remediation or improvement plans, and eventually taken over by the state. One recommendation is for educators to transform their teaching practices that focus on assessment, learning, and student needs that may result in improving student academic achievement and teacher accountability. This goal may be achieved through adopting and implementing a professional learning community (PLC).

PLCs like many educational reforms are designed to change the classroom

environment. The infrastructure to create supportive cultures and conditions necessary to improve teaching and learning requires intention, collegiality, commitment, and a focus on learning (Nelson et al., 2013). Additionally, the PLC is a staff development strategy used to improve student achievement by strengthening the quality of teaching (Watson, 2014) through research based effective instructional practices (Lipka & Siegel, 2012). Central to PLCs, teachers engage in collaborative, reflective, inclusive learning to

improve teacher effectiveness as professionals. As mentioned earlier PLCs are designed for teacher and student success by creating (Kalkan, 2016) and sustaining a collaborative culture focused on improving student learning (Jones & Thessin, 2015). This goal is achieved by ongoing professional development, and high-quality teaching that are linked to increasing student achievement (Owen, 2014). In a PLC, priority is focused on teacher practice, collaborative decision making, and teacher learning (Kalkan, 2016). School leaders focus their efforts on assessment, both teacher and student learning, and teacher and student success by creating and sustaining a culture of learning (Thornton & Cherrington, 2014).

Despite the implementation of PLCs and many other school improvement initiatives, their effectiveness in meeting their goals is often left unevaluated (Wells & Feun, 2013). PLCs are implemented to create opportunities for effective professional development and teaching (Woodland & Mazur, 2015) by the intentional work of teachers to improve instruction and student achievement (Wennergren, 2016). If PLCs are not evaluated, then schools may not close the achievement gap among students, increase student achievement, or improve teacher and school accountability.

Background of Problem

Implementation of a PLC at a K-5 elementary school located in the Western region of the United States was designed to address poor student performance, and close the achievement gap based among the low socioeconomic status students. The PLC model was implemented at the target school beginning in September 2015 for the academic year 2015/2016. Teachers were responsible for collaborating in grade level

teams to address evidence of learning using collective inquiry. They used collective inquiry in weekly meetings to examine data and create common assessments to determine how students were meeting state and classroom objectives. These assessments were designed to measure outcomes of learning, and teachers brought the class performance data to the team meetings for collaborative discussions. Teachers discussed what students knew, how they knew students had learned the content, how to collaboratively plan if students did not know the information, and what to do if they already mastered the information.

The school in question is characterized by a high student mobility rate and low socioeconomic status, with 94% of students qualifying for the free and reduced rate lunch program (Colorado Springs School, 2016). The students with low socioeconomic status (SES) continue to fall behind their peers, which indicates that the achievement gap is increasing (Colorado State Department of Education, 2017). This poor academic performance of low SES students is evident from 2015- 2017 data. Growth scores provide a view of performance. School growth rates are calculated yearly by comparing their Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) scores in reading and mathematics. PARCC scores measure how students are performing and meeting grade level expectations. Students receive a numerical score ranging from 650-850 and a performance level of 1-5 used to indicate student achievement, areas of

improvement, and how well they are achieving state standards. Additionally, these levels are used to identify what students should demonstrate at each level. The five levels are: Level 1: Did not meet expectations, Level 2: Partially met expectations, Level 3:

Approached expectations, Level 4: Met expectations, Level 5: Exceeded expectations (Colorado Department of Education, 2018). The growth model identifies the percentage of students who are meeting the achievement levels, and those who are not making adequeate gains. Table 1 represents the growth scores for students classified as free and reduced lunch. The Grade 4 and 5 growth rate for the 2015/2016 academic year in English Language Arts was 42% and the state average was 47%. The Grade 4 and 5 growth rate in mathematics was 58% and exceeded the state avearge of 54%. The English language arts growth rates for the academic year 2016/2017 was 33% and the state average was 47%. The mathematics growth rate for the academic year 2016/2017 was 46% and the state average was 46%.

Table 1

State Assessment Growth Results Based on PARCC Scores

Free and Reduced Lunch 2016 PARCC Results Free and Reduced Lunch 2017 PARCC Results 2016 English Language Arts 42% 47% 33% 47%

2016 Mathematics 58% 54% 46% 46%

The goals of the PLC at the research site is to focus on collaboration and collective inquiy. The indicators in meeting these goals include clarifying essential learning outcomes, common formative assessments, establishing and monitoring progress

on team goals, innovative responsibility, and results orientation. In an examination of agenda and board meeting minutes over the 2015 and 2016 school year, there is no evidence that this PLC has been evaluated to determine whether these goals have been met (CSSD11.org). Based on the evidence to date, the PLC goals regarding collaboration and collective inquiry have not been evaluated (CSSD11.org, 2016) and will be the focus of this study. The remaining goals, although important and critical to the research site, will not be a part of this program evaluation, because collaboration and collective inquiry are foundational to the rest of the school’s goals.

The local site adopted the goals for the PLC based on DuFour’s PLC model. Professional learning communities are “the ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many, 2006, p.111). Administrators focused their attention on ensuring that students are not only taught but learn. The expectation is that the collaborative effort will produce ongoing student achievement and teacher learning and are evidenced in the following district goals:

District Goal 1: Meet in meaningful teams (collaboration) to improve professional practice.

District Goal 2: Analyze and respond to data (collective inquiry)

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine how K-5 teachers use collaboration and collective inquiry to close the achievement gap among subgroups of children and improve student achievment. Evaluating the PLC goals (collaboration and collective inquiry) may provide pertinent data for stakeholders to determine the success of this

inititative. Additionally, the program evaluation data may identify strengths and

weaknesses of these two goals. This program evaluation is formative in nature due to the recent adoption and implementation of this educational initiative.

The remainder of Section 1 of this study includes a statement of the problem, the purpose, significance of the study, a review of the major background literature, research questions, and an outline of the conceptual framework. Section 2 presents a discussion of research methodology and ethical considerations.

Definition of the Problem

In an effort to address low student achievement, K-5 local school leaders adopted and implemented a PLC to improve instruction. Many such interventions are never evaluated for their effectiveness on meeting the program’s goals (Wells & Feun, 2013), which represents a gap in practice. Evaluating programs is critical to ensure that teaching practices support high-level educational outcomes for students (Owen, 2014). Improving instruction and ensuring teaching practices and educational outcomes are effective

strategies when increasing teacher quality and improving academic achievement (Battersby & Verdi, 2015). When teachers demonstrate high levels of effective collaboration and collegial responsibility, teaching practices improve and student achievement increases (Hilliard & Newsome, 2013). Responding to this need, when PLCs are evaluated, progress toward closing the achievement gap, improving student achievement, and improving accountability may be achieved.

Students in Grades 3-5 still perform below state expectations despite

achievement and close the achievement gap has not produced the outcomes desired by school leaders. There is a need for formative evaluation of collaboration and collective inquiry because students continue to fail to meet grade-level state expectations.

Rationale

Educators and school leaders are challenged with increasing achievement and closing the achievement gap for all students (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). Many schools have implemented the PLC to meet these challenges by improving teaching pedagogies and increasing student achievement (Poskitt, 2014). In the 2015/1016 school year, a PLC was adopted and implemented at the target site to achieve these outcomes. The school was placed on a unified improvement plan (UIP) to address the problems of students performing below the 50th percentile and decreasing scores in reading, writing, and

mathematics at the elementary level. These scores indicate mounting growth gaps in these subject areas. In addition, there are increasing numbers of students with severe reading deficiencies (SRD) identified by the teachers, the learning coach, and

administration at the local school (CSSD11.org). Two goals of the PLC, teacher collaboration and collective inquiry, were selected to assist teachers in choosing

strategies to improve instruction for all students, including high-mobility students and/or low SES. To date the goals of this PLC have not been evaluated to determine whether they are effective.

Merriam (2009) stated that the goal of program evaluation is to increase understanding and gain insight into the worth or efficacy of a program. Despite the implementation of PLCs and other school improvement initiatives, many are never

evaluated for effectiveness. Formative program evaluation may provide insights into implementing and interpreting the outcomes of collaboration and collective inquiry, and the sustainability of a given PLC implemented in a local school district. This standard contains evidence that a problem exists with the implementation of a PLC at the local level and in the wider education profession.

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level

In an effort to improve teacher and student learning a professional development program based on the PLC model was implemented at the target school in September 2015 for the academic year 2015/2016. However, its effectiveness has not yet been evaluated, a lack which represents a gap in practice (Colorado Springs School District, 2016). The selected site for this doctoral study is performing below state-level

expectations in reading, writing, mathematics, and social studies (Colorado State Department of Education, 2016). In the spring, the PARCC test is administered to students in mathematics and language arts for Grades 3 through 5 (Parcc, 2014). Additionally, students in Grade 4 are administered the social studies assessment, and Grade 5 students are administered the science assessment every three years. For two years, students at the research site scored below the state average in social studies, language arts, mathematics, and science as presented in Table 2. The trends for Grade 3 students’ language arts scores for the 2015/2016 academic years were 15.1% and 15.7% respectively; however, a decrease was noted for 2017 (8%). The trend for Grade 3 students’ mathematics scores showed an increase in 2016 (19.6%) from 13.2% in 2015 but a decrease in 2017 to 10.4%. The trends for Grade 4 students’ language arts scores

for the 2015/2016 academic years were 11.3%, 14.5%, and showed an increase in 2017 to 18.2%. The mathematics scores for 2015/2016 were 5.8% and 7.3%. The scores

increased to 18.2% in the 2017 school year. Grade 4 students continue to score below the state results in all three years. The trends for Grade 5 students’ English/language arts scores for the 2015 academic year was 17.4% and decreased to 10.0% in 2016. In the 2017 academic year the score increased to 17.7%. The fifth grade students still score below the state avearage of 46.3%. The fifth grade mathematics scores for the 2015 academic year was 6.7%, increased to 16.3% in 2017, and decreased to 12.9% in 2017. The fifth grade students scored below the state average in all three years. The fifth grade science scores in 2015 were 10.4%. The students were not tested in 2016. In 2017, the scores decreased to 8.2%. The fifth grade students still performed below the state average in all three academic years.

Table 2

State Assessment Results

2015 PARCC Results State PARCC Results 2016 PARCC Results State PARCC Results 2017 PARCC Results State PARCC Results 3rd English Language Arts 15.1% 38.2% 15.7% 37.4% 8% 40.1% 3rd _{Mathematics 13.2% 36.7% 19.6% 38.9% 10.4% 40.0 %} 4th English Language Arts 11.3% 41.7% 14.5% 43.9% 18.2 % 44.1% 4th Mathematics 5.8% 30.2% 7.3% 33.3% 19.7% 34.0% 5th English Language Arts 17.4% 40.5% 10.0% 41.2% 17.7% 46.3% 5th Mathematics 6.7% 30.1% 16.3% 34.3% 12.9 % 33.6%

5th Grade Science 10.4% 34.8% n/a n/a 8.2% 34.9%

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature

An effective form of professional development is the PLC as along as this form of professionment development is implemented with fidelity and includes the following characteristics: supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practice, and supportive conditions (Jones,

Stall, & Yarbrough, 2013). PLCs can make a difference in professional learning, collaboration, decision making, and practices that may lead to higher rates of student achievement (Liou & Daly, 2014). Professional learning in schools occurs when colleagues interact to share and review assessment data, participate and apply professional learning, and plan curriculum to improve their teaching and learning (Hoaglund, Birkenfeld, & Box, 2014). Educators develop, analyze, and improve instruction through collaborative discussions that focus on identifying the strenghts, weaknesses, and gaps in student achievement gaps. A PLC can be deemed successful if teachers select their professional learning objectives and participate in collaborative discussions (Stewart, 2014). When teachers are given autonomy to select their professional learning goals, they are more inclined to make choices that produce the educational outcomes that align with the school’s learner outcomes.

School teams may encounter problems when trying to implement the PLC with fidelity. First, teachers need time to regularly collaborate. Collaboration is used to provide teachers with opportunities to work together to expand their expertise, discuss challenges, and actively learn about their practices with their colleagues (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015). Additionally, teachers use collaboration to review timely and

relevant data, plan appropriate curriculum, and learn strategies and teaching techniques to improve student learning (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014). Second, teachers review student achievement data from district, state, and classroom assessments to determine their effectiveness on teaching (Christiansen & Robey, 2015). Once teachers review student data, they are expected to select and plan instruction to assist student learning.

Teachers struggle with identifying research based practices, analyzing student data, and collaborative conversations centered on students and improving instruction (Owen, 2014). Teachers who are involved in collaborative conversations about instructional strategies and data increase the likelihood that their efforts will improve student achievement (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). As a result of collaborative conversations, teachers design instruction that focused on the individual needs of all students, discover which students needed extra support, and discuss instructional strategies.

The key to implementing a successful PLC is the commitment of school leaders to integrate collaboration, deprivatization of practice, and classroom based assessments into professional development at their schools (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). Deprivatization of practice is another term for “teacher talk” through engaging in solving problems of practice, accessing knowledgeable resources, and observing other teachers to improve academic achievement (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). It is critical for all stakeholders involved in a PLC initiative to understand that commitment is not the sole responsibililty of school leaders. Only when the above happens, does a PLC have the potential to improve collaboration, instruction, and improve student achievement (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014).

The purpose of this formative program evaluation was to evaluate the PLC goals of collaboration and collective inquiry in a K-5 low performing Title I school. Merriam (2009) stated that the goal of program evaluation is to increase understanding and gain insight on the worth or process of the program. To reiterate since the implementation of the PLC at the research site, student achievement has not improved.

Definitions

Collective inquiry: The process by which teachers build shared knowledge, learn together, and offer feedback to improve their respective teaching practice (Liou & Daly, 2014).

Common formative assessment: A collaboratively designed testing process used to identify students who need additional support (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012).

Teacher collaboration: A systemic process whereby teachers frequently meet to share ideas, defend a position, achieve consensus, apply knowledge to common goals, give and accept feedback, and learn to improve student learning (Morel, 2014).

Planning time: A regularly scheduled time when teachers meet to discuss planning and goals, monitor progress, and give each other feedback (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012).

Professional learning Committee meeting: Grade level teams meet weekly to collaborate, monitor student learning, and develop common formative assessments (Prytula, 2012).

Professional learning committee team: Collaborative grade level teams that meet regulary to develop common formative assessments, analyze achievement, and share strategies and create lessons to improve student achievement (Hilliard & Newsome, 2013).

Professional learning community (PLC): A group of teachers working together to solve problems, achieve goals, and collaborate for a common purpose (Prytula, 2012).

Vertical and horizontal teams: Teachers work collaboratively with teachers above and below their grade levels to improve student achievement (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).

Significance

For this formative program evaluation, I provided information about the program’s implementation and potential success for the program designers and school stakeholders adopting the PLC model. Principals, learning coaches, and teachers where PLCs feature collaboration, and collective responsibilities and the potential influence on teacher and student learning will benefit from this study. The PLC contains information on the changing roles of educators, school culture, classroom environment, vision, organizational learning, and focuses on student achievement. Researchers use formative program evaluations to make decisions about the program, examine barriers, and provide feedback for implementation (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011). This formative evaluation

determined how this school’s PLC achieved its student achievement goals to date and what improvements need to be implemented. Students will benefit from the study by understanding how they are performing and what they can do to improve their learning. Additionally, students will benefit from instruction that is designed to meet their

individual needs.

If a PLC is successful, the implications for positive social change include recommendations for further teacher collaboration, a sense of community, and instructional improvement resulting in student learning gains. In contrast, recommendations may be warranted if weaknesses are identified regarding how

collaboration and/or collective inquiry are executed. Long-term benefits of the evaluation may include a transformation in the way teachers collaborate and increase collective inquiry. The results will help administrators prioritize goals and resources to support teacher and student learning.

Guiding Questions

The following questions were created to evaluate teacher collaboration and collective inquiry in the PLC at the local urban elementary school. The responses to these questions were designed to provide decision-makers and key stakeholders

information that is both essential and useful for program improvement (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011).

RQ1: How do PLC team members develop and maintain collaboration to close the achievement gap and improve student achievment?

RQ2: How do PLC team members use collective inquiry to improve student performance?

Review of the Literature

The purpose of this section was to present a review of the literature on

implementing PLCs, evaluating PLCs, the study’s theoretical framework, collaboration, collective inquiry, professional development, and transformation effects of the PLC model on teaching practice and student learning. The literature review for this project study also includes information on using the conceptual framework to guide the study and PLC’s use of collaboration and collective inquiry to address the achievement gap among student groups. An iterative process was conducted retrieving articles and studies

from ERIC, ProQuest Central, Google Scholar, and Sage. Also, for the search for literature related to PLCs, a search was completed for student achievement, federal policies, and professional learning. Keywords included student achievement, policies, professional learning, collective inquiry, assessment, school culture, and professional development.

Conceptual Framework

I used DuFour’s model (1998) to inform this program evaluation for the PLC that the school district has adopted. School leaders use this framework to change their school cultures and build capacity for implementing and sustaining the PLC (Makopoulou & Armour, 2014). If this PLC model is adopted as the foundation for a PLC, teachers are expected to share expertise, collaborate, and learn together to improve their teaching skills as well as the academic performance of students (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Through the PLC, educators can improve teaching and participation in professional development and improve student achievement through collaborative practices that provide instructional support (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). Additionally, PLCs can be used by school leaders to create the opportunity for teachers to come together to identify student needs, improve teacher and leader knowledge, and create and understand common practices that can influence and improve instruction in the classroom (Thessin, 2015). Teachers identify instructional challenges they face and the changes needed to improve their teaching and expand their pedagogical knowledge through focusing on their learning instead of teaching. In a PLC, teachers address their assumptions and individual beliefs, and continue alternative teaching practices focused on student

achievement to facilitate change (Attard, 2012). Teachers target areas of improvement and monitor the results on a continual basis by examining, reflecting, and adapting on their teaching practices to deliver top education for all students.

Although the PLC is a professional development model, many school districts that have adopted it have not evaluated the program. The purpose of this study was to

evaluate the PLC goals of collaboration and collective inquiry in a K-5 low-performing Title I school to improve the quality of teaching and student learning. Evaluating the PLC’s goals (collaboration and collective inquiry) provided pertinent data for

stakeholders to ascertain the success of this inititative. The interview questions and team meeting documents for participants were used to gain information on whether the goals and objectives of collective inquiry and collaboration were met.

DuFour and Eaker Professional Learning Community Model.

DuFour and Eaker (2006) identified the PLC as a model with which schools can build high-performing collaborative teams that focus on transforming instruction and improving student learning. The foundation of the PLC supports the mission, vision, values, and goals of a given organization (DuFour, DuFour, Loertscher, & Many, 2010). Educators collaboratively identify the school's mission, consider relevant questions, and reach a consensus on why the organization exists and what it hopes to become

(Richmond & Manokore, 2014). Teachers, administrators, and leaders make collective commitments to support the vision, articulate, and clarify the purpose of the organization to move the school forward (Kohler-Evans, Webster-Smith, & Albritton, 2013). Goals of an organization are used by school leaders to determine targets and timelines that provide

a measure of the attainability of the improvement initiative and allow individuals to assess whether they are making a difference and meeting their desired outcomes on time (Jones, Stoll, & Yarbrough, 2013). According to DuFour et al. (2010), school

administrators must engage staff members in communication and create congruency between what they say and do.

The research site’s mission, vision, values, and goals align with the PLC model. Individual grade level teams receive encouragement from principals and learning coaches to develop grade level missions to support the school’s mission (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013). The teams develop goals for potential strategies, current programs, and procedures contained in and aligned with the vision of the school and what the school wants to become (DuFour et al., 2010). The research site’s vision is to “provide

excellent, distinctive educational experiences that equip students for success today and in the future” (Colorado Springs School District 11, n.d.). Goals at the research site are for teachers to engage in frequent conversations about teaching practice, plan effective teaching strategies and programs, and providing collective ownership of learning goals to improve student achievement. These goals follow the PLC model. For my evaluation, I am focusing on collaboration and collective inquiry.

Collaboration is an element in DuFour’s model (DuFour et al., 2010). Teachers work collaboratively toexamine their instructional practices and to make changes to improve teaching, learning, and student achievement (DuFour et al., 2010). Educators

collaboratively identify what students need to know and how educators will address challenges in student learning by engaging in questions that encourage self reflection and

analysis. The most significant questions that PLC addresses are to identify what students need to learn and how they will know when students have demonstrated mastery (DuFour et al., 2010).

Collective inquiry is also a key element of the PLC model. Grade level teams engage in collective inquiry and conversations regarding the best teaching and learning practices (DuFour & Mattos, 2013). Individual team members identify how their

students are performing and the students’ levels of achievement and share this knowledge with other faculty and staff. Grade level teams use collective inquiry to learn new skills and knowledge that can influence their experiences and awareness (Brodie, 2014). Grade level teams use critical inquiry to identify what essential standards are necessary for students to achieve the desired outcomes. At the research site, the grade level team meets weekly to discuss what students need to know and how students demonstrate mastery of learning based on students’ academic performance.

A related component of DuFour’s PLC model is action orientation. Educators understand the importance and urgency of turning goals into reality. Teachers engage in action orientation because they realize powerful learning takes place in the context of taking action, and value engagement and experience are the most helpful teachers (DuFour et al., 2010). PLC members also know not to anticipate different results until they change instruction (DuFour et al., 2010).

One of the most prevailing strategies for improving student learning is the construction of high quality common formative assessments by teachers working collaboratively to identify the knowledge and skills for specific state standards that

students need to meet to be successful (DuFour et al., 2010). Common formative assessments are used to promote accountability by providing information about the progress students are making. Teachers use these assessments to provide and ensure common pacing, ensure students have access to the same curriculum, and evaluate the quality of their students’ work. Additionally, common assessments should include teacher-made tests, unit tests, and district assessments are regularly administered to determine evidence of student learning. Teachers collaboratively review the assessment results to identify strengths and weaknesses in student learning and teacher instruction. Teachers compare results to determine how their students are performing against other students who took the assessment. This comparison allows teachers to share instructional strategies and ideas on how their students excelled.

Teachers also use the common formative assessments to discover students who are experiencing difficulties, need additional time, and support and to improve teachers’ individual and collective professional practices. These assessments provide information to administrators on the strengths and weaknesses of the curricula and programs in a district and, in this way, promote institutional accountability. These assessments help discovery of strengths and weaknesses in PLC members’ instructional delivery and to motivate them to learn more effective techniques from their peers (DuFour et al., 2010; Stewart, 2014).

Grade level teams identify the next steps for instruction for students who have mastered the skills to advance their learning. In individual classrooms, teachers continually monitor how students are performing on daily assignments, teacher made

assessments, and state assessments. Teachers apply this knowledge to create a cycle of continuous improvement. Grade level teams review the data to determine instructional strategies to decide how to provide support for students who have not mastered specific skills. Team members decide which instructional strategies would benefit their students to increase student achievement. Teachers implement the strategies and then analyze the effect of changes should they occur. In sum, the continuous improvement cycle begins with assessing student knowledge, identifying and implementing strategic teaching, monitoring student engagement throughout the school year in a variety of tasks, and then making changes to instruction. Educators in a PLC team commit to continuous

improvements to achieve the purpose of the PLC organization. One of the main goals of continuous improvement is for teachers to learn new strategies while creating an

environment that encourages lifelong learning, innovation, and experimentation (DuFour et al., 2010).

Anothercomponent of DuFour’s PLC model is a commitment to continuous improvement (DuFour et al., 2010). DuFour (2010) identified a systematic process to engage all members of the PLC in improvement. First, it is important for educators to identify current levels of student learning and identify strategies to address any needs. To assure that every student has the opportunity to master the same essential learning, school and district leaders must collaboratively engage teachers in clarifying, studying teaching, and committing to teaching the curriculum in an effective way for all. Collaborative teams study a common teaching attribute over a school year. Collaboratively studying

critical learning promotes clarity, consistent priorities, and the establishment of a workable curriculum for all students.

The framework and related literature guided the development of the two research questions. The interview protocol and document analysis are based on the two

constructs, collaboration and collective inquiry, within the framework and related literature. The PLC has served as framework for other studies.

Herrelko (2016) used the Du Four’s theoretical framework to examine how often DuFour’s big ideas were used in PLCs in 12 urban elementary schools. The descriptive case study focused on improving the mathematical skills of these schools’ students. Herrelko’s findings concluded that the PLCs were more productive in all schools when they focused on DuFour’s big ideas.

Farley-Ripple and Buttram (2014) used a mixed methods study in four urban elementary schools to examine the implementation of the PLC for improving teaching and learning in these schools. Qualitative data consisted of interviews, observations, and document analysis collected during the 2010-2011 school year. Expectations for the PLC and school improvement planning were gathered through district interview. Research findings identified the importance of district leadership focusing on communicating a clear and consistent vision and expectations of how data influences teacher instruction.

Kalkan’s (2015) quantitative study revealed the connection between teachers’ perceptions and organizational trust in the PLC. The sample included 805 primary education teachers using stratified sampling. The research model consisted of two

independent variables and two dependent variables. The researchers found that teachers’ perceptions of the PLC increased through trust in principals and colleagues.

Formative Objectives-Oriented Program Evaluation Model

A formative objectives oriented program evaluation is used to render judgments about the value of a program that is being evaluated and may use predetermined

objectives to determine whether the goals and objectives of the program have been met (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011). Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2004) defined an

objectives-oriented program evaluation as the “identification, clarification, and

application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation worth or merit in relation to those criteria” (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2004, p. 5). Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2011) referenced seven steps for program evaluation using the Tylerian

Evaluation Approach. The seven steps are to (1) establish goals or objectives, (2) classify goals, (3) define objectives, (4) locate achievement in goals, (5) select measurement techniques, (6) collect performance data, (7) compare performance data and objectives.

Step 1 – Establish goals or objectives: The PLC teams identified the goals and objectives for the PLC during the initial implementation of the PLC model.

Step 2 – Classify goals: The goals were organized in ways that they are measurable for collective inquiry and collaboration.

Step 3 – Define objectives: The program objectives were defined by the PLC teams to clarify their meaning, and what they are intended to accomplish.

Step 4 – Find situations in which achievement of objectives can be measured: I used interview and document protocols to monitor the achievement of goals.

Step 5 – Select measurement techniques: I used qualitative measurement techniques to determine whether collaboration and collective inquiry goals are met.

Step 6 – Collect performance data: Team meeting notes and interviews were used to collect data.

Step 7 - Compare performance data with objectives: I compared the qualitative data with the objectives to determine whether the goals and objectives were met. I made two modifications to this program evaluation model. First, this program evaluation was not used to evaluate the entire PLC program, but only on whether the goals of collective inquiry and collaboration were met. Second, in a typical program evaluation may include both quantitative and qualitative measures. Due to the nature of the problem and research questions to address the problem, only a qualitative research method was used. Data were collected through interviews with and team meeting notes from PLC teams that participated in the implementation of the PLC in 2015 and 2016.

One of the key elements of an objectives-oriented program evaluation is to identify the objectives of the program, which is the primary role of an evaluator, and to collect data. An objectives oriented evaluation uses explicitly stated objectives, and the evaluation assesses whether the goals and objectives have been met. Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen (2004) identified one appeal to using a program evaluation is that it is simple to use, easily understood, and produces information for stakeholders.

Critical Review of the Literature Academic Achievement

One education quality concern is that high school graduates are not fully prepared to enter college or the workforce. The United States continues to fall behind other countries in pre-college educational outcomes (Nation’s Report Card, 2017). The 2015 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) results show that only 40% of fourth grade and 33% of eighth grade students perform at or above proficiency levels in

mathematics. Additionally, only one-third of fourth and eighth grade students perform at or above proficiency in reading (Nation’s Report Card, 2017). Nearly 60% of college students, moreover, enroll in college remedial classes, which is a significant issue in low college graduation rates (Board, 2018). The American College Testing (ACT) 2016 results showed that only 23% of Hispanic students and 11% of African American

students were ready for college (ACT, 2015). In the public education system, one in five students is not graduating on time with peers, and more than 4,000 students drop out of high school (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).

Too many elementary schools are not meeting their goals for improving student achievement. Thirty-six percent of fourth grade students perform at or above the proficient level in reading, and 40% of fourth graders perform at 33% proficient on the NAEP assessment (Nation’s Report Card, 2017). Schools are expected to be effective in educating students and increasing academic achievement on a yearly basis. Individual schools are responsible for implementing plans and goals to improve student achievement (Leavitt et al., 2013). Schools also continue to face the task of improving academic

standards for all students whether they are elementary, middle school, or high school students. Researchers Brown, Horn, and King (2018) identified that student achievement improves as a result of teachers and schools embracing and participating in the PLC.

Effect on Student Learning

PLCs are an approach used by schools that contributes to positive student outcomes for student learning (Muñoz & Branham, 2016). To improve student

achievement, teachers have to implement strategies and programs to address low student achievement and implement mandated reforms (Jones et al., 2013). The reform efforts require schools to address low student achievement and learning gaps among students. Schools have to ensure that all students encounter rigorous standards and challenging cognitive demands while serving an increasing number of students who have struggled to find success with traditional instructional practices (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Schools face increased pressure from state and local governments to collect student achievement data, show student performance growth, and determine instructional quality as

benchmarks for raising the caliber of classroom teaching (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). Schools show academic progress by teachers examining successfulteaching and learning practices and collaborating to increase achievement of students in all K-12 settings and at all socioeconomic levels (Jones & Thessin, 2015).

Improvement of student achievementinvolves more than evaluations of student performance. An essential element of student academic success is teacher quality

(Battersby & Verdi, 2015). Due to federal mandates, requirements for school and teacher accountability have resulted in evaluations designed to remove ineffective teachers from

classrooms and ensure that teachers who remain in classrooms are effective (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). Improving students’ academic achievement requires professional

development for teachers that continually upgrades instructional practices (Owen, 2014). Having ineffective teachers in the classroom continue to lower students’ academic achievement (Woodland & Mazur, 2015). Inflated performance measures, ineffective evaluation methods, and professional development programs that have little or no effect on teaching quality remain reasons for ineffective teachers staying in the classroom (DuFour & Mattos, 2013).

Standardized Testing. Schools remain under pressure for increased

accountability, student learning, and data collection. Fortunately, these requirements are

used to force educators to adopt instruction improvement strategies (Farley-Ripple &

Buttram, 2014). Standardized test scores are used to measure school and teacher accountability. State and local educational agencies throughout the United States have

put in place accountability measures to promote higher student achievement and help schools and students struggling to meet state standards (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014). Educators remain accountable to their peers, districts, state accountability measures, policymakers, and district and school administrators. Teachers’ participation in PLCs has

lead to students’ improved performance on standardized testing (Ning, Lee, & Lee, 2015) thus, addressing teacher accountability. Ning, Lee, and Lee (2015) focused on effective collaborative practices in enhancing instructional effectiveness, student learning, and accountability. The sample consisted of 952 teachers from 95 schools in Singapore, with most participants being female. The researchers identified team collegiality as a

significant factor in shared personal practice and collective learning. Collective staff attention to student learning needs can influence both student learning and teacher quality, which improves students and teachers’ performance. Such collective inquiry tends to occur through strong relationships among teachers (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015).

Teaching to diverse populations. As schools become more diverse, teachers

must understand the academic needs and behaviors of all students and develop strategies for improving their academic achievement. Teachers struggle with the skills and

knowledge needed to teach an increasingly diverse learner population. Educators use PLCs to engage in conversations and understand diversity in the classroom to identify and address obstacles to learning, and to accommodate diverse learning needs (Walton, Nel, Muller, & Lebeloane, 2014). For a diverse student population, teachers have to review course content to ensure that it meets these students' needs in preparing for further

education or employment. In this study, diversity factors of students at the local site

include socioeconomic status, language, ethnicity, and physical and mental limitations. It is imperative that teachers recognize that all students can learn regardless of these

diversity factors (Walton et al., 2014).

Federal Policies

Many Americans question why school reform efforts have not improved student achievement or preparation for college and the workforce (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Federal and state legislators, school boards, parents, and educators want an

education system that prepares students for the 21st century workforce and citizenship in

struggled to find success in the traditional school model in which teachers focused on teaching instead of student learning when challenged to increase academic achievement (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Based on the concerns expressed by these stakeholders, an increased focus on student achievement has caused schools to challenge their

fundamental philosophies regarding teaching and learning.

In the early 1980s, educational leaders rushed to identify solutions to low student performance since the “Nation at Risk” report identified struggles that U.S. schools faced when preparing students to compete in the global economy (U.S. Department of

Education, 2018). Because of this report, federal policies were written to increase student achievement by requiring more assessments and increasing the consequences for

inadequate results including rejecting diplomas, dismissing teachers, and closing schools (Darling-hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017). Increased emphasis on accountability for student performance, meeting state standards, and teacher qualifications have created new expectations for teachers and schools (Dever & Lash, 2013).

No Child Left Behind (2001), Race to the Top (2012), Common Core State Standards Initiative 2010), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) are federal policies designed to improve student performance and to prepare students for college or the workforce. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was written to increase academic rigor, accountability, and quality personnel through state testing (Aquila, 2014). Educators were required to prepare students for the workforce and higher education by adopting student learning objectives, retaining qualified teachers, and tracking student progress (RTTT, 2012). Additionally, Common Core Standards were implemented to prepare

students for college and the workforce (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). The Every Student Succeeds Act was written so state leaders could select their

accountability plans, goals, and improvement programs to ensure that all students improve academically (ESSA, 2015).

No Child Left Behind. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was written to

address issues of student achievement by requiring schools receiving federal funding to provide programs to support comprehensive school reform (Aquila, 2014). Additionally, educators were mandated to use research based strategies to improve student

achievement. Student achievement was measured by annual state testing of students identified by race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). One of the goals of NCLB (2001) was to reduce or close the achievement gap among students by increasing academic rigor, teacher quality, use of measurable objectives, and accountability through state assessments. Schools were required to demonstrate adequate yearly progress or be at risk of losing state or federal funding. Schools that did not meet these requirements were mandated to implement school improvement plans including the restructuring of administrations, offering of supplemental educational services, and creation of corrective action plans. Additionally, teachers were required to be “highly qualified” in subject areas they taught. Highly qualified were denoted by teacher licensure, a bachelor’s degree, and subject matter competency in the subject area that they teach. The implementation of NCLB at K-12 schools influenced how students received instruction, professional development in-service for teachers, how teachers created assessments, introduced national standards, and

measured success. As a result of NCLB, school personnel (a) aligned standards to classroom teaching to improve instruction, (b) made better use of test results to improve academic achievement, scores on state tests are higher, and (c) aggregate test scores of their students and subgroups of children for purposes of accountability (Ladd, 2017). In response to NCLB’s school reform, educators use the PLC as a school improvement method (Dever & Lash, 2013). The PLC is a tool to help schools address NCLB mandates by ensuring teachers are highly qualified, and have the content knowledge in curriculum, teaching, and assessment that they need to improve student achievement.

Race to the Top. Another federal initiative, Race to the Top, was implemented

to improve student achievement and encourage educational reform. K-12 administrators were required to use research based improvement models and teacher merit pay and endorse a commitment to close the achievement gap among all students (Race to the Top, 2012). Educators adopted student learning objectives, used data to guide instruction, participated in professional development, and effective teachers were recruited and retained to prepare students for college and the workforce (Race to the Top, 2012). The key to successfully achieving these goals was incumbent on hiring and retaining effective leadership (i.e., the principal). The school principal’s role in this initiative included greater responsibility for organizational change (Kellar & Slayton, 2016). Organizational change was achieved by transferring a principal from a high forming school to a low performing school to increase academic achievement (Kellar & Slayton, 2016). Stakeholders in low performing schools were responsible for improving academic

performance, adopting standards that prepared students to succeed in college and the workforce, and increasing teacher and principal effectiveness.

Common Core Standards. Common Core Standards were implemented in 2009

to provide educators with a clear, consistent framework aligned to college and career expectations, and embracing higher order thinking skills (Common Core State Standards

Initiative, 2010). State personnel adopted Common Core Standards to improve students’ academic performance and track student achievement to ensure that they have the

necessary skills for college or the workforce. Elementary teachers used the Common Core standards to develop goals and objectives that students had to master at every grade level. By nature of the PLC adopted at the research site and based on district and state requirements, teachers collaborate and integrate the common core standards in lessons to enhance their instructional practices and improve student learning. Additionally, teachers create lessons based on the specific standards for each grade level, offering students the same curriculum as the curriculum at specific grade levels across the country. Common Core standards require students to learn content knowledge and then process the

knowledge using conscious reasoning that continues to increase in complexity. Currently, 42 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards and implemented these based on their timelines (Common Core State Standard Initiative, 2018).

Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015

reauthorized the No Child Left Behind Act. The authors designed ESSA to narrow the achievement gap by providing all students with fair and equal access to education and achieving academic excellence (Congress, 2015). Part of this federal legislation featured

multiple state and district assessments to determine the academic performance of students, the progress of English language learners, and school quality as the individual state specifies (Congress, 2015). Ninety five percent of all students are tested annually. Schools that do not meet the established standards are identified as needing improvement if they score in the bottom 5% of the state or fail to graduate more than one third of senior class students, especially those from underperforming socioeconomic groups (Colorado Department of Education, 2018).

Educational stakeholders in reaction to the federal mandates adopted PLCs to increase student achievement, address school reform, and create a collaborative teacher culture focused on learning (Liou & Daly, 2014). PLCs are tools to influence teacher learning, improve classroom instruction, and gain higher student achievement (Vablaere & Devos, 2016).

Teacher Professional Development

One of the issues that school administrators face is providing effective

professional development for teachers to affect positively the academic performance of all students. Teachers learn to meet the diverse needs of their students in quality professional development training (Jones & Dexter, 2014). Both veteran and new teachers benefit from professional development programs that familiarize participants with district implemented improvement programs (Richmond & Manokre, 2014). Teachers need to learn to teach in different ways from how they were taught, shifting their focus from teacher centered instruction to student centered instruction (Jones & Dexter, 2014). Traditionally, in the teacher centered classroom, teachers stood in front of

the classroom lecturing and requiring students to learn the content. In contrast, teachers in student centered instruction facilitate student learning in individual or small groups using individualized learning and scaffolding instructional strategies to improve academic achievement (Andersen & Andersen, 2017).

Professional development is a requirement for all teachers as part of all state teacher licensing programs and individual school district guidelines. Schools use many professional development opportunities according to their cost, content, and capacity for meeting academic standards (Battersby & Verdi, 2015). The current professional development model implemented at the K-5 elementary school in this study is the PLC with a focus on sustaining academic performance.

Effective PD that affects student performance. To make a difference in student

learning outcomes, professional development should be linked to learner needs, work to provide extended time for student learning, be collaborative, and include an ongoing assessment of effective professional development initiatives focused on improving student achievement (Cherkowski, 2016). When teachers have autonomy in selecting their professional development content, they design and implement their professional development content to lead to positive teacher and student outcomes (Linder, 2012). DuFour’s (2014) practitioner focused article investigated PLCs that identified

improvements in student and teacher learning. DuFour (2014) identified these

descriptors of successful professional development: ongoing, collective, job embedded, and results oriented. Teachers who participate in continuous learning embedded in their jobs are more likely to improve student learning (Hoaglund, Birkenfeld, & Box, 2014).

Professional development can create positive teacher and student outcomes when done successfully, however, it is typically inadequate in meeting teacher learning needs (Jones & Dexter, 2014). Teacher learning in a PLC is more effective than traditional professional development because participants in PLCs commit to working together with the objective of improving student learning (Stewart, 2014). In a qualitative case study of three schools based on interviews with 58 teachers, Owen (2014) explored how high quality teaching and ongoing professional development in the PLC affect student achievement. Findings from the Owen (2014) study indicated that students benefited from the collaborative efforts of teachers examining data, learning from colleagues, and adopting innovative practices with ongoing support. Participating teachers in a PLC reported that professional development enhances instruction through engaging in interesting activities, learning from each other, focusing on improving their

competencies, learning to work with difficulties in student learning, and being reflective about the most effective techniques to improve instruction (Cheng & Ko, 2012).

Teachers and administrators use the PLC to provide complex skills that students need to improve academic achievement, student behavior, higher level thinking skills, and student engagement. These opportunities help students to solve problems

individually and collectively.

Professional Development That Affects Teacher Performance

Additionally, many schools seek ways to sustain academic improvement by ensuring teachers are engaged in ongoing professional development and are enhancing professional development opportunities for teachers (Cheng & Ko, 2012). High quality

professional development programs create new learning opportunities for teachers by addressing the specific student achievement and teacher learning needs of each school (Dever & Lash, 2013). To improve and sustain academic improvement, students need effective teaching to acquire higher order thinking skills. Teachers need new

opportunities to learn to teach more effectively, prepare their students for a diverse workforce, and focus on the teaching learning relationship (Jones & Dexter, 2014). To achieve these goals, effective professional development experiences should include collaborative approaches that are monitored for effectiveness to improve students’ educational outcomes. Collaborative approaches engage teachers in conversations and debates within a PLC to support staff professional growth and educational practices and improve student learning (Poekert, 2012).

Administrators at the local site implemented various professional development opportunities for teachers to improve and sustain academic achievement and teacher learning. To improve academic achievement, district administration adopted various curriculum programs, coaching, mentoring, workshops on curriculum, and study groups

to improve instruction To sustain student achievement, teachers need to be trained and use curriculum programs with fidelity. Often teachers would select portions of a program rather than implementing the program as intended. In general, conventional approaches are ineffective because they have produced limited measurable effects on teaching practice and student outcomes (Gore et al., 2017).

Additionally, teachers take ownership of their learning using the PLC model to improve teaching. Kelly and Cherkowski (2015) sought to understand how professional